Get a grip. I was being facetious. I've made several reasonable arguments as to why I think Franken should lose. You don't have to agree with those arguments.
And it has been pointed out to you why most of your arguments are wrong as a matter of both law and logic. Yet I have not seen you in any way indicate that you have bothered to read or attempted to comprehend them. You simply repeat, "but Frankin's trying to make money."
This ignores that fact that he's trying to make money by criticizing Fox, not by confusing himself with them--which is what trademark protection is all about.
And my rant was directed at more than just you. I happen to live in the most republican state in the country--and yet I still have to put up with Hannity on the radio claiming to be "The Last Bastion of Truth in A Trouble Time." As if you couldn't turn in to Rush, O'Rielly or Reagan--or any of the other wannabes--and here exactly the same "Truth."
By the way, check out Salon.com for an exerp from Joe Cannason's book. It's probably much better than Frankin's and far more damning.
BR trying to discredit a valid argument by painting the arguer as a crackpot partisan who is incapable of having a well thought-out opinion. Who would have ever predicted this?
I'm not surprised. On the other hand, you didn't actually deny being a "crackpot partisan who is incapable of having a well thought-out opinion."
And it has been pointed out to you why most of your arguments are wrong as a matter of both law and logic. Yet I have not seen you in any way indicate that you have bothered to read or attempted to comprehend them. You simply repeat, "but Frankin's trying to make money."
This ignores that fact that he's trying to make money by criticizing Fox, not by confusing himself with them--which is what trademark protection is all about.
And my rant was directed at more than just you. I happen to live in the most republican state in the country--and yet I still have to put up with Hannity on the radio claiming to be "The Last Bastion of Truth in A Trouble Time." As if you couldn't turn in to Rush, O'Rielly or Reagan--or any of the other wannabes--and here exactly the same "Truth."
By the way, check out Salon.com for an exerp from Joe Cannason's book. It's probably much better than Frankin's and far more damning.
We are expressing opinions here. From what I have read on the topic, Fox at least has a case for the two reasons I listed. What qualifies you?
As far as your rant, it's not my problem if you live in a state which is Republican. I don;t write Hannity's material. Frankly, I couldn't care less if you are frustrated.
Quote:
Yet I have not seen you in any way indicate that you have bothered to read or attempted to comprehend them.
First, I don't appreciate that. It's over the top. Why is it that liberals turn to insulting one's intelligence and comprehension skills? Second, what I can't comprehend is what that statment means. I don't understand my own arguments? That's the way your statment is written.
Finally, I never said that "Franken is trying to make money". What I said was that he is mimicking the look and feel of Fox News (a popular and well-known network), as well as their trademarked phrase to piggyback sales of his book.
okay, i am no expert on this sort of thing, but use of a trademark phrase or even "look and feel" varies in degree, depending on what it's trying to sell. also, it depends on the context in which the phrase is used.
---snip----
anyway, this is just a mish-mash compilation of how i understand that laws as they have been told to me over the years, and may not be entirely accurate. basically, can fox news sue? sure. but their time and money could probably be put to far better use than this.
Actually, you wrote a very cogent explanation of trademarks. There's a little nuance in there that should be brought out though. Trademarks get varying levels of protection based on their distinctiveness. There are 3 general types of marks (there may be more, but my IP days are long over) - fanciful, arbitrary, suggestive, descriptive, and generic. The first 3 are considered inherently distinctive and anyone using them other than the TM holder is in for a tough fight. Fox's tm is probably merely descriptive (suggestive requires the phrase to be only suggestive of the features of the product but also use the term in a new or unusual way; a suggestive mark would be something like "heart of darkness" applied to a candy bar having a dark chocolate center). Descriptive marks are only protectible (very generally) if they have acquired some secondary meaning with the public, which "fair and balanced" has. Nonetheless, the scope of protection will very low as described in rok's post, and others above. Of course, Fox could argue that "Fair and Balanced" is actually "arbitrary" or "fanciful", but that would sort of undermine their whole premise, wouldn't it?
So what you're saying is that AL is trying to "fool" people into buying his book?
That someone picking up this book would just see O'Reilly's photo and the words "far and balanced" and rush over to the register without opening the book or reading the back cover...
Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?
O'reilly is a liar... he says that Al Franken is not someone he would ever stoop to associate with, YET he's been on his show twice before... O'Reilly likes to pretend things didn't happen or make things up.
He hasn't once proven or shown that Al has lied or done the very things he himself has done. His ego is so bloated he thinks that just saying something makes it true... HE never won a Peabody... he never even one a Polk... the show he left did... AFTER he left. Yet he blathers on about how he didn't host a tabloid show because it won an award.
Finally, I never said that "Franken is trying to make money". What I said was that he is mimicking the look and feel of Fox News (a popular and well-known network), as well as their trademarked phrase to piggyback sales of his book.
If he used the phrase as a parody and this way boosted the salewould you still consider it wrong?
First, I don't appreciate that. It's over the top. Why is it that liberals turn to insulting one's intelligence and comprehension skills? Second, what I can't comprehend is what that statment means. I don't understand my own arguments? That's the way your statment is written.
What exactly gives you this moral high ground? Do you not remember a little thread made by sammy jo that you crashed? Do you not remember every insult you fling at "liberals?" Give me a break. You go around insulting everyone else then cry and moan when someone returns the favor.
We are expressing opinions here. From what I have read on the topic, Fox at least has a case for the two reasons I listed. What qualifies you?
A) I come from a family of lawyers, including a brother who works in entertainment and IP law.
b) I work as a creative professional--including writing and music. Some knowledge of contract and copyright law is a matter of survival in contract negotiations.
c) Opinions--remember. I'm allowed one too.
Quote:
As far as your rant, it's not my problem if you live in a state which is Republican. I don;t write Hannity's material. Frankly, I couldn't care less if you are frustrated. [/B]
You know, that was meant as a bit of an apology for the tone -- thanks for throwing it back in my face. You used a type or argument that pushed my buttons. I thought you might like to know why it pushed my buttons.
Quote:
First, I don't appreciate that. It's over the top. Why is it that liberals turn to insulting one's intelligence and comprehension skills? Second, what I can't comprehend is what that statment means. I don't understand my own arguments? That's the way your statment is written. [/B]
Forgive the grammar. I could repond in kind and tell you it's spelled "Statement."
What I mean is that you don't seem to bother to read, comprehend or respond to the opponent?s arguments in order to address them. Why won't the parody defense work? Why do you think it doesn't matter that Trademark of common phrases is usually limited? Why do you think that a trademark taken for a news network should be applied to books, as well? (You do realize that O'Rielly's books are not put out by Fox news--and hence the look and feel of them has nothing to do with this lawsuit.)
If you would like to prove you do have an interest in real discussion. Please pick a point above to refute, and I promise a polite, thoughfull, respectful answer. If not, well, I won't be suprised.
Quote:
Finally, I never said that "Franken is trying to make money". What I said was that he is mimicking the look and feel of Fox News (a popular and well-known network), as well as their trademarked phrase to piggyback sales of his book. [/B]
And, once again, back to the same argument without addressing counter arguments. Do you have any thoughts on the arguments above? Remember, Frankin is disagreeing politically with Fox News. Political speech is the single most protected form of speech under the law and constitution. Fox's Trademark is commercial, usually the least protected form of free speech.
You are free to think Fox will win. But to think it is an open and shut case--or to think those who disagree with it even being filed are simply blinded by ideology--is simply willfully ignoring the evidence.
They've moved up the release of the book to the end of this week... hehe. Just in time for the hearing on Friday... how great will it be if they throw the suit out on friday... more free press!
Oh and they've printed an additional 40,000! Thanks FNC!
What exactly gives you this moral high ground? Do you not remember a little thread made by sammy jo that you crashed? Do you not remember every insult you fling at "liberals?" Give me a break. You go around insulting everyone else then cry and moan when someone returns the favor.
You are a goddamn joke.
There is a clear difference between what I do and what others like you do. I mocked sammi jo's thread and called her out on her supposed impartiality. I did NOT call her "stupid" or a "goddamn joke" or tell her she needs to learn to comprehend common English.
If you are insulted by the fact that I think liberalism is a totally flawed and failed ideology, then I'm sorry. See, it's the ideology I have a problem with, and any attacks I make are come out of that context. I might ask someone how in the hell they can believe what they do, or express shock at a statment, or deride liberals and liberalism, but that's not a personal attack. I attack the IDEA.
Funny, you don;t seem to have a problem with the thread "Psyche Profile of Conservatism"...now do you? You don't seem to have a problem with the six billion anti-bush, anti-republican, anti-war, anti-tax cut threads that get started...do you? Thought not.
...And the next time I'm having it out with someone else about HIS post, stay the **** out of it.
A) I come from a family of lawyers, including a brother who works in entertainment and IP law.
b) I work as a creative professional--including writing and music. Some knowledge of contract and copyright law is a matter of survival in contract negotiations.
c) Opinions--remember. I'm allowed one too.
You know, that was meant as a bit of an apology for the tone -- thanks for throwing it back in my face. You used a type or argument that pushed my buttons. I thought you might like to know why it pushed my buttons.
Forgive the grammar. I could repond in kind and tell you it's spelled "Statement."
What I mean is that you don't seem to bother to read, comprehend or respond to the opponent?s arguments in order to address them. Why won't the parody defense work? Why do you think it doesn't matter that Trademark of common phrases is usually limited? Why do you think that a trademark taken for a news network should be applied to books, as well? (You do realize that O'Rielly's books are not put out by Fox news--and hence the look and feel of them has nothing to do with this lawsuit.)
If you would like to prove you do have an interest in real discussion. Please pick a point above to refute, and I promise a polite, thoughfull, respectful answer. If not, well, I won't be suprised.
And, once again, back to the same argument without addressing counter arguments. Do you have any thoughts on the arguments above? Remember, Frankin is disagreeing politically with Fox News. Political speech is the single most protected form of speech under the law and constitution. Fox's Trademark is commercial, usually the least protected form of free speech.
You are free to think Fox will win. But to think it is an open and shut case--or to think those who disagree with it even being filed are simply blinded by ideology--is simply willfully ignoring the evidence.
Your continued insults aside, I am not dismissing your arguments. It is possible Fox will lose based on some of the grounds you pointed out. I also have a fair understanding of copyright law, BTW.
But, the evidence is against Franken here. As I said, do you think he would have used the phrase if Fox DID NOT use it? Of course not. The phrase would have no meaning if Fox hadn't popularized it. Franken used it while rather obviously visually referencing Fox News itself, and now he will profit from it. He also may have slandered O'Reilly and others in the process with the sub title.
This has nothing to do with ideology. This is about trying to predict what a court of law will decide, and I think there is a good chance Fox will win the case. Legal context aside, what Franken did was shameless and you know it.
There is a clear difference between what I do and what others like you do. I mocked sammi jo's thread and called her out on her supposed impartiality. I did NOT call her "stupid" or a "goddamn joke" or tell her she needs to learn to comprehend common English.
I'd dig through the archives but I don't have that kind of time.
Quote:
If you are insulted by the fact that I think liberalism is a totally flawed and failed ideology
I'm not insulted by that. I'm insulted that you use the word "liberal" as an insult that you fling at people who disagree with you. If I were to believe that the word "flimdangleboofrackno" meant dirty slut homosexual fat cow person with feces on their head and everyone knew that was how I viewed the word and I went around calling everyone a "flimdangleboofrackno" in every thread, it would be just as wrong.
Maybe this SAT analogy might clear things up.
In SDW's world...
Liberal:Retard::Fudge:Fvck.
Quote:
See, it's the ideology I have a problem with, and any attacks I make are come out of that context.
The idea and the person do not live separately in a vacuum.
Quote:
I might ask someone how in the hell they can believe what they do
Let's finish the sentence and add implied bits...How in the hell can they believe what they do? What they believe is retarded and anyone who believes that must be a dirty liberal scumbag!
Quote:
or express shock at a statment, or deride liberals and liberalism,
Like it or not, some people identify themselves by their ideology. Hence, an attack on their ideology is a direct attack on them.
Quote:
but that's not a personal attack.
See above.
Quote:
I attack the IDEA.
And the idea that you are allowed to have kids sickens me. I'm just attacking the idea man.
Quote:
Funny, you don;t seem to have a problem with the thread "Psyche Profile of Conservatism"...now do you? You don't seem to have a problem with the six billion anti-bush, anti-republican, anti-war, anti-tax cut threads that get started...do you? Thought not.
I didn't make a big stink in that thread because I find it to be boring schlock. I have no problem with threads that criticize the sitting president, my stupid democrat governor in Cali, for tax cuts, against tax cuts, for mandatory female circumcision, against breast feeding in public, or pretty much anything else for that matter.
Quote:
...And the next time I'm having it out with someone else about HIS post, stay the **** out of it. [/B]
No, I will not stay the <expletive deleted> out of it. It's a public board and I will respond publicly on this public board because the public deserves to hear my publicly made speech intended for the general public of AI.
I'm not insulted by that. I'm insulted that you use the word "liberal" as an insult that you fling at people who disagree with you.
Then be insulted. I call them like I see them.
Quote:
Let's finish the sentence and add implied bits...How in the hell can they believe what they do? What they believe is retarded and anyone who believes that must be a dirty liberal scumbag!
The difference is I don't write that. It's your inference.
Quote:
Like it or not, some people identify themselves by their ideology. Hence, an attack on their ideology is a direct attack on them.
Like it or not, I can't control other's feelings...only my own. If people take me attacking an ideology as attacking them, then that is the individual's problem.
Quote:
And the idea that you are allowed to have kids sickens me. I'm just attacking the idea man.
That's perhaps the most disingenuous and classless thing you've ever said, BR. Your just playing more semantical games. You know quite well that the above statement does not attack an idea.
Quote:
No, I will not stay the <expletive deleted> out of it. It's a public board and I will respond publicly on this public board because the public deserves to hear my publicly made speech intended for the general public of AI.
translation: "I will follow SDW around and disagree with everything he posts just because I can.... all while simultaneously insulting him instead of arguing the point".
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
Get a grip. I was being facetious. I've made several reasonable arguments as to why I think Franken should lose. You don't have to agree with those arguments.
And it has been pointed out to you why most of your arguments are wrong as a matter of both law and logic. Yet I have not seen you in any way indicate that you have bothered to read or attempted to comprehend them. You simply repeat, "but Frankin's trying to make money."
This ignores that fact that he's trying to make money by criticizing Fox, not by confusing himself with them--which is what trademark protection is all about.
And my rant was directed at more than just you. I happen to live in the most republican state in the country--and yet I still have to put up with Hannity on the radio claiming to be "The Last Bastion of Truth in A Trouble Time." As if you couldn't turn in to Rush, O'Rielly or Reagan--or any of the other wannabes--and here exactly the same "Truth."
By the way, check out Salon.com for an exerp from Joe Cannason's book. It's probably much better than Frankin's and far more damning.
Originally posted by SDW2001
BR trying to discredit a valid argument by painting the arguer as a crackpot partisan who is incapable of having a well thought-out opinion. Who would have ever predicted this?
I'm not surprised. On the other hand, you didn't actually deny being a "crackpot partisan who is incapable of having a well thought-out opinion."
(just kidding)
EDIT: Added smily.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
I'm not surprised. On the other hand, you didn't actually deny being a "crackpot partisan who is incapable of having a well thought-out opinion."
(just kidding)
EDIT: Added smily.
It is a sad day indeed when smilies and just kidding in parenthesis are necessary to avoid retribution over what is clearly a joke.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
BR, I'm worried for you... don't go holding anything back now!
See, the problem is
derived from the fact that if I call someone a goose-stepper
whether or not it is true or a joke, I might get banned again.
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
And it has been pointed out to you why most of your arguments are wrong as a matter of both law and logic. Yet I have not seen you in any way indicate that you have bothered to read or attempted to comprehend them. You simply repeat, "but Frankin's trying to make money."
This ignores that fact that he's trying to make money by criticizing Fox, not by confusing himself with them--which is what trademark protection is all about.
And my rant was directed at more than just you. I happen to live in the most republican state in the country--and yet I still have to put up with Hannity on the radio claiming to be "The Last Bastion of Truth in A Trouble Time." As if you couldn't turn in to Rush, O'Rielly or Reagan--or any of the other wannabes--and here exactly the same "Truth."
By the way, check out Salon.com for an exerp from Joe Cannason's book. It's probably much better than Frankin's and far more damning.
We are expressing opinions here. From what I have read on the topic, Fox at least has a case for the two reasons I listed. What qualifies you?
As far as your rant, it's not my problem if you live in a state which is Republican. I don;t write Hannity's material. Frankly, I couldn't care less if you are frustrated.
Yet I have not seen you in any way indicate that you have bothered to read or attempted to comprehend them.
First, I don't appreciate that. It's over the top. Why is it that liberals turn to insulting one's intelligence and comprehension skills? Second, what I can't comprehend is what that statment means. I don't understand my own arguments? That's the way your statment is written.
Finally, I never said that "Franken is trying to make money". What I said was that he is mimicking the look and feel of Fox News (a popular and well-known network), as well as their trademarked phrase to piggyback sales of his book.
Originally posted by rok
okay, i am no expert on this sort of thing, but use of a trademark phrase or even "look and feel" varies in degree, depending on what it's trying to sell. also, it depends on the context in which the phrase is used.
---snip----
anyway, this is just a mish-mash compilation of how i understand that laws as they have been told to me over the years, and may not be entirely accurate. basically, can fox news sue? sure. but their time and money could probably be put to far better use than this.
Actually, you wrote a very cogent explanation of trademarks. There's a little nuance in there that should be brought out though. Trademarks get varying levels of protection based on their distinctiveness. There are 3 general types of marks (there may be more, but my IP days are long over) - fanciful, arbitrary, suggestive, descriptive, and generic. The first 3 are considered inherently distinctive and anyone using them other than the TM holder is in for a tough fight. Fox's tm is probably merely descriptive (suggestive requires the phrase to be only suggestive of the features of the product but also use the term in a new or unusual way; a suggestive mark would be something like "heart of darkness" applied to a candy bar having a dark chocolate center). Descriptive marks are only protectible (very generally) if they have acquired some secondary meaning with the public, which "fair and balanced" has. Nonetheless, the scope of protection will very low as described in rok's post, and others above. Of course, Fox could argue that "Fair and Balanced" is actually "arbitrary" or "fanciful", but that would sort of undermine their whole premise, wouldn't it?
Thoth
That someone picking up this book would just see O'Reilly's photo and the words "far and balanced" and rush over to the register without opening the book or reading the back cover...
Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?
O'reilly is a liar... he says that Al Franken is not someone he would ever stoop to associate with, YET he's been on his show twice before... O'Reilly likes to pretend things didn't happen or make things up.
He hasn't once proven or shown that Al has lied or done the very things he himself has done. His ego is so bloated he thinks that just saying something makes it true... HE never won a Peabody... he never even one a Polk... the show he left did... AFTER he left. Yet he blathers on about how he didn't host a tabloid show because it won an award.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Finally, I never said that "Franken is trying to make money". What I said was that he is mimicking the look and feel of Fox News (a popular and well-known network), as well as their trademarked phrase to piggyback sales of his book.
If he used the phrase as a parody and this way boosted the salewould you still consider it wrong?
Originally posted by SDW2001
Why is it that liberals turn to insulting one's intelligence and comprehension skills?
Don't be a close minded fool. Conservatives call me names around here and 'insult my intelligence'.
Originally posted by SDW2001
First, I don't appreciate that. It's over the top. Why is it that liberals turn to insulting one's intelligence and comprehension skills? Second, what I can't comprehend is what that statment means. I don't understand my own arguments? That's the way your statment is written.
What exactly gives you this moral high ground? Do you not remember a little thread made by sammy jo that you crashed? Do you not remember every insult you fling at "liberals?" Give me a break. You go around insulting everyone else then cry and moan when someone returns the favor.
You are a goddamn joke.
Originally posted by SDW2001
We are expressing opinions here. From what I have read on the topic, Fox at least has a case for the two reasons I listed. What qualifies you?
A) I come from a family of lawyers, including a brother who works in entertainment and IP law.
b) I work as a creative professional--including writing and music. Some knowledge of contract and copyright law is a matter of survival in contract negotiations.
c) Opinions--remember. I'm allowed one too.
As far as your rant, it's not my problem if you live in a state which is Republican. I don;t write Hannity's material. Frankly, I couldn't care less if you are frustrated. [/B]
You know, that was meant as a bit of an apology for the tone -- thanks for throwing it back in my face. You used a type or argument that pushed my buttons. I thought you might like to know why it pushed my buttons.
First, I don't appreciate that. It's over the top. Why is it that liberals turn to insulting one's intelligence and comprehension skills? Second, what I can't comprehend is what that statment means. I don't understand my own arguments? That's the way your statment is written. [/B]
Forgive the grammar. I could repond in kind and tell you it's spelled "Statement."
What I mean is that you don't seem to bother to read, comprehend or respond to the opponent?s arguments in order to address them. Why won't the parody defense work? Why do you think it doesn't matter that Trademark of common phrases is usually limited? Why do you think that a trademark taken for a news network should be applied to books, as well? (You do realize that O'Rielly's books are not put out by Fox news--and hence the look and feel of them has nothing to do with this lawsuit.)
If you would like to prove you do have an interest in real discussion. Please pick a point above to refute, and I promise a polite, thoughfull, respectful answer. If not, well, I won't be suprised.
Finally, I never said that "Franken is trying to make money". What I said was that he is mimicking the look and feel of Fox News (a popular and well-known network), as well as their trademarked phrase to piggyback sales of his book. [/B]
And, once again, back to the same argument without addressing counter arguments. Do you have any thoughts on the arguments above? Remember, Frankin is disagreeing politically with Fox News. Political speech is the single most protected form of speech under the law and constitution. Fox's Trademark is commercial, usually the least protected form of free speech.
You are free to think Fox will win. But to think it is an open and shut case--or to think those who disagree with it even being filed are simply blinded by ideology--is simply willfully ignoring the evidence.
Is FOX really gonna go through with this.
Originally posted by Anders
http://www.nbc6.net/entertainment/2415468/detail.html
Is FOX really gonna go through with this.
OH NO! YOU ARE TRYING TO GET MORE ATTENTION TO YOUR POSTS BY HAVING FAIR AND BALANCED AS YOUR TITLE! SUE ANDERS! SUE ANDERS! SUE ANDERS!
They've moved up the release of the book to the end of this week... hehe. Just in time for the hearing on Friday... how great will it be if they throw the suit out on friday... more free press!
Oh and they've printed an additional 40,000! Thanks FNC!
Originally posted by BR
What exactly gives you this moral high ground? Do you not remember a little thread made by sammy jo that you crashed? Do you not remember every insult you fling at "liberals?" Give me a break. You go around insulting everyone else then cry and moan when someone returns the favor.
You are a goddamn joke.
There is a clear difference between what I do and what others like you do. I mocked sammi jo's thread and called her out on her supposed impartiality. I did NOT call her "stupid" or a "goddamn joke" or tell her she needs to learn to comprehend common English.
If you are insulted by the fact that I think liberalism is a totally flawed and failed ideology, then I'm sorry. See, it's the ideology I have a problem with, and any attacks I make are come out of that context. I might ask someone how in the hell they can believe what they do, or express shock at a statment, or deride liberals and liberalism, but that's not a personal attack. I attack the IDEA.
Funny, you don;t seem to have a problem with the thread "Psyche Profile of Conservatism"...now do you? You don't seem to have a problem with the six billion anti-bush, anti-republican, anti-war, anti-tax cut threads that get started...do you? Thought not.
...And the next time I'm having it out with someone else about HIS post, stay the **** out of it.
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
A) I come from a family of lawyers, including a brother who works in entertainment and IP law.
b) I work as a creative professional--including writing and music. Some knowledge of contract and copyright law is a matter of survival in contract negotiations.
c) Opinions--remember. I'm allowed one too.
You know, that was meant as a bit of an apology for the tone -- thanks for throwing it back in my face. You used a type or argument that pushed my buttons. I thought you might like to know why it pushed my buttons.
Forgive the grammar. I could repond in kind and tell you it's spelled "Statement."
What I mean is that you don't seem to bother to read, comprehend or respond to the opponent?s arguments in order to address them. Why won't the parody defense work? Why do you think it doesn't matter that Trademark of common phrases is usually limited? Why do you think that a trademark taken for a news network should be applied to books, as well? (You do realize that O'Rielly's books are not put out by Fox news--and hence the look and feel of them has nothing to do with this lawsuit.)
If you would like to prove you do have an interest in real discussion. Please pick a point above to refute, and I promise a polite, thoughfull, respectful answer. If not, well, I won't be suprised.
And, once again, back to the same argument without addressing counter arguments. Do you have any thoughts on the arguments above? Remember, Frankin is disagreeing politically with Fox News. Political speech is the single most protected form of speech under the law and constitution. Fox's Trademark is commercial, usually the least protected form of free speech.
You are free to think Fox will win. But to think it is an open and shut case--or to think those who disagree with it even being filed are simply blinded by ideology--is simply willfully ignoring the evidence.
Your continued insults aside, I am not dismissing your arguments. It is possible Fox will lose based on some of the grounds you pointed out. I also have a fair understanding of copyright law, BTW.
But, the evidence is against Franken here. As I said, do you think he would have used the phrase if Fox DID NOT use it? Of course not. The phrase would have no meaning if Fox hadn't popularized it. Franken used it while rather obviously visually referencing Fox News itself, and now he will profit from it. He also may have slandered O'Reilly and others in the process with the sub title.
This has nothing to do with ideology. This is about trying to predict what a court of law will decide, and I think there is a good chance Fox will win the case. Legal context aside, what Franken did was shameless and you know it.
Originally posted by SDW2001
There is a clear difference between what I do and what others like you do. I mocked sammi jo's thread and called her out on her supposed impartiality. I did NOT call her "stupid" or a "goddamn joke" or tell her she needs to learn to comprehend common English.
I'd dig through the archives but I don't have that kind of time.
If you are insulted by the fact that I think liberalism is a totally flawed and failed ideology
I'm not insulted by that. I'm insulted that you use the word "liberal" as an insult that you fling at people who disagree with you. If I were to believe that the word "flimdangleboofrackno" meant dirty slut homosexual fat cow person with feces on their head and everyone knew that was how I viewed the word and I went around calling everyone a "flimdangleboofrackno" in every thread, it would be just as wrong.
Maybe this SAT analogy might clear things up.
In SDW's world...
Liberal:Retard::Fudge:Fvck.
See, it's the ideology I have a problem with, and any attacks I make are come out of that context.
The idea and the person do not live separately in a vacuum.
I might ask someone how in the hell they can believe what they do
Let's finish the sentence and add implied bits...How in the hell can they believe what they do? What they believe is retarded and anyone who believes that must be a dirty liberal scumbag!
or express shock at a statment, or deride liberals and liberalism,
Like it or not, some people identify themselves by their ideology. Hence, an attack on their ideology is a direct attack on them.
but that's not a personal attack.
See above.
I attack the IDEA.
And the idea that you are allowed to have kids sickens me. I'm just attacking the idea man.
Funny, you don;t seem to have a problem with the thread "Psyche Profile of Conservatism"...now do you? You don't seem to have a problem with the six billion anti-bush, anti-republican, anti-war, anti-tax cut threads that get started...do you? Thought not.
I didn't make a big stink in that thread because I find it to be boring schlock. I have no problem with threads that criticize the sitting president, my stupid democrat governor in Cali, for tax cuts, against tax cuts, for mandatory female circumcision, against breast feeding in public, or pretty much anything else for that matter.
...And the next time I'm having it out with someone else about HIS post, stay the **** out of it. [/B]
No, I will not stay the <expletive deleted> out of it. It's a public board and I will respond publicly on this public board because the public deserves to hear my publicly made speech intended for the general public of AI.
If you don't want me to comment, keep it to PMs.
Have a nice liberal day.
I'm not insulted by that. I'm insulted that you use the word "liberal" as an insult that you fling at people who disagree with you.
Then be insulted. I call them like I see them.
Let's finish the sentence and add implied bits...How in the hell can they believe what they do? What they believe is retarded and anyone who believes that must be a dirty liberal scumbag!
The difference is I don't write that. It's your inference.
Like it or not, some people identify themselves by their ideology. Hence, an attack on their ideology is a direct attack on them.
Like it or not, I can't control other's feelings...only my own. If people take me attacking an ideology as attacking them, then that is the individual's problem.
And the idea that you are allowed to have kids sickens me. I'm just attacking the idea man.
That's perhaps the most disingenuous and classless thing you've ever said, BR. Your just playing more semantical games. You know quite well that the above statement does not attack an idea.
No, I will not stay the <expletive deleted> out of it. It's a public board and I will respond publicly on this public board because the public deserves to hear my publicly made speech intended for the general public of AI.
translation: "I will follow SDW around and disagree with everything he posts just because I can.... all while simultaneously insulting him instead of arguing the point".
I think that's what you meant.